Hi Cheryl, You make a good point about the inclusion of representatives of the potential new "non-commercial" constituencies. As the effort to put a work group together continues I will confirm that this consideration is taken into account. Thanks a. On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:45, Cheryl Preston wrote: > Dear Avri and Adam, > > The Board resolution clearly states that "GNSO community work with > members of the ALAC/At- > Large community and representatives of potential new "non- > commercial" constituencies ." And yet there is no provision in this > suggestion for anyone from the proposed new constituencies. What is > going on? > > Cheryl B. Preston > Edwin M. Thomas > Professor of Law > J. Reuben Clark Law School > Brigham Young University > 434 JRCB > Provo, UT 84602 > (801) 422-2312 > [log in to unmask] > >>>> Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 1/15/2009 4:44 am >>> > (resending a couple of messages I tried to send a day or so ago, but > got caught somewhere...) > > See email below from Avri to the GNSO council. > > I hope the NCUC will quickly respond to say the discussion should be > between the NCUC members and ALAC. Hope other council members will > have the good sense to keep out. Think it's a very poorly worded > motion by the board. Would be interesting to know who proposed it, > seconded and how it came to pass. Perhaps our council reps could ask. > > Adam > > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06146.html > > [council] First thoughts on acting on BR 2008-12-11 02 > > Hi, > > > As was briefly mentioned at the last meeting, we need to do something > about this. > > Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02 > > > "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At- > Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" > constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the > composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting > structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual > Internet users" > > > The following is an idea that has been discussed between the chair of > ALAC and myself and vetted a little with relevant staff. I understand > she has taken the proposal to the ALAC (I thought we were going to > talk about it some more first, but never mind) and I am now bringing > it to the council. > > Given the pressure of time, we could use a model similar to the one > developed by the board to force the GNSO constituencies to action on > restructuring. > > I.e. Create a joint group of GNSO and ALAC representatives to spend > 30 days coming up with a suggestion. > > Number of people: > > > From the GNSO we could have at > > > Option a. 1 per constituency + an NCA = 7 > Option b. 1 from each SG + an NCA = 5 > > > (given were we are heading with the restructuring it might be > interesting to try that model. note this is not council members but > constituency/SG members) > > From ALAC there should be at least one from each region = 5 > If we went with the 7 person model, not sure how they would pick the > other 2. > > We should add a GAC observer as well. > > > And we could ask (i.e. volunteer) Rob to coordinate. He handled the > last such effort very well. > > > As with the structuring group, they would be responsible for > communicating with their constituencies/regional organizations/SGs > and for coming to consensus. > > The recommendation would then be subject to public review and then > subject to approval by both the GNSO Council and ALAC using their own > methods > > This would take longer then board motion requested, but we could at > least give them a plan and a schedule. I figure it would take minimum > 8 weeks from Time 0. If we act quickly, we could be ready for open > discussions in Mexico City, with the comment period ending a week > after that meeting. Allowing for a decsions shortly thereafter. > > Thoughts? > > > Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant only > to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus there > is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO council > in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his view and accept > it if it is the predominant view in the council. I do, however, feel > obliged to make sure we have responded to the Board motion, and hence > the proposal and the discussion. > > a. > > > END > > > At 12:39 PM -0500 1/13/09, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> It is not a staff proposal. >> >> It is a proposal which i was part of initiating for how to respond >> to: >> >>> >>> Board resoluion 2008-12-11-02 >>> >>> "that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/ >>> At- >>> Large community and representatives of potential new "non- >>> commercial" >>> constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the >>> composition >>> and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group >>> that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet >>> ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users" >> >> >> As I indicated in my note to the council on this: >> >>> >>> Note: One possible objection is that this discussion is relevant >>> only to the NCSG and not to the rest of the GNSO community and thus >>> there is no role for the rest of the GNSO community or for the GNSO >>> council in this process. I can certainly see the logic of his >>> view and accept it if it is the predominant view in the council. I >>> do, however, feel obliged to make sure we have responded to the >>> Board motion, and hence the proposal and the discussion. >> >> I look forward to council discussion on this to determine the right >> course of action for resolving the issues contained in the Board's >> motion and for responding to the Board's motion. I expect that the >> NCUC council members will give a strong indication of the NCUC's >> preferences in this matter. >> >> As for being on the NCUC list. As someone who is at the same time >> an academic and a member of several organizations that are NCUC >> members but not an NCUC member per se, I read the list but do not >> generally respond unless directly 'addressed'. I am grateful I am >> allowed to read the list as email as opposed to having to go to the >> archive. >> >> As for my reelection; while I do very much appreciate the >> enthusiastic support of NCUC council members and their nomination >> for my first two terms, just as I very much appreciate having been >> nominated by members of the RrC for the most recent election, I try >> to do the job as openly and fairly as I can without moderating my >> views based on who nominated me. That does not mean I don't blow it >> from time to time, but when I do it is because I got it wrong and >> not because X or Y supported my nomination. >> >> >> a. >> >> >> >> On 13 Jan 2009, at 12:14, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> So, Avri has replied privately indicating that she is not the >>> author of this proposal, it is a staff proposal and (here she needs >>> to speak for herself) she believes that the structure of a NCSG may >>> indeed be NC stakeholders' business and not the GNSO's business, so >>> this is not as bad as I thought it was. However, we do need to take >>> up with ICANN Staff exactly what they are trying to do. It's very >>> dangerous and counter productive for staff to pit different GNSO >>> factions and constituent groups against each other and very naive >>> (at best) for them to invite commercial constituencies to play a >>> role in defining the governance structure of noncommercial >>> constituencies. >>> >>> My apologies to Avri and please don't let my mistake (often it is >>> hard to follow all this stuff accurately) divert anyone's attention >>> from the seriousness of this issue. >